Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

August 23, 2020 | 讙壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖状驻

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 14

Due to technical issues, today’s video is in two parts.

What is the minimum width of a cross beam? The gemara brings a number of different cases of beams that are not long enough or not wide enough on their own, but can combine with another. Under what circumstances would this work? What is the beam is curved outward toward the public domain? What if it is a circle, what circumference would mean that the beam is one handbreadth in diameter? The rabbis determined that it would be at a circumference of 3. This is derived from a verse in聽 the book of Kings describing the utensil in the temple called the yam of Shlomo. It had 150 times the requisite measurement needed for a mikveh. The gemara goes through the calculations that confirm this. What is the height and width of a post? Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis disagree about the width. Who do we hold like? What are the factors that went into determining this?

讙诪壮 讟驻讞 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 讘注讬


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the statement in the mishna with regard to the minimum width of the cross beam: A handbreadth? A handbreadth and a half is required, as a small brick is a handbreadth and a half wide.


讻讬讜谉 讚专讞讘 诇拽讘诇 讟驻讞 讗讬讚讱 讞爪讬 讟驻讞 诪诇讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讘讟讬谞讗 诪砖讛讜 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪砖讛讜 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗


The Gemara answers: Since the cross beam is wide enough to receive and hold a handbreadth, one can affix the remaining half handbreadth with plaster, a small amount on this side and a small amount on that side, and the brick will stand in place.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讜专讛 砖讗诪专讜 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讛讗 讘专讬讗讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜诪注诪讬讚讬 拽讜专讛 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讬讜 讘专讬讗讬谉 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 拽讜专讛 讜讗专讬讞 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讬讜 讘专讬讗讬谉 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 拽讜专讛 讜讗专讬讞


Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The cross beam of which the Sages spoke must be sturdy enough to receive and hold a small brick; however, the supports of the cross beam need not be sturdy enough to receive and hold a cross beam and a small brick. Criteria were established for the cross beam itself, which renders the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; criteria were not established for its supports. Rav 岣sda disagreed and said: Both this, the beam, and that, its supports, must be sturdy enough to hold a cross beam and a small brick.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛谞讬讞 拽讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 讜驻专住 注诇讬讛 诪讞爪诇转 讜讛讙讘讬讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 砖诇砖讛 拽讜专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诪讞讬爪讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 拽讜专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讚讛讗 诪讬讻住讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛


Rav Sheshet said: If one placed a cross beam over the entrance of an alleyway, and draped a mat over it, and raised the lower end of the mat three handbreadths from the ground, there is neither a cross beam here, nor is there a partition here to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it. There is neither a cross beam here, as it is obscured and therefore inconspicuous. Nor is there a partition here, as it is a partition that is more than three handbreadths off the ground through which goats can pass, and therefore it does not have the legal status of a partition.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讜专讛 讛讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讜讙注转 讘讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讻谉 砖转讬 拽讜专讜转 讗讞转 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讜讙注讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


Our Sages taught in the Tosefta: If a cross beam projects from this wall of an alleyway but does not touch that wall opposite, and similarly, if there are two cross beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from that wall opposite, and they do not touch one another, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall, or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam.


专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讗专讘注 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the gap is less than four handbreadths, one need not bring another cross beam. However, if it is four handbreadths, he must bring another cross beam, as in his opinion the principle of lavud applies to a gap up to four handbreadths wide.


讜讻谉 砖转讬 拽讜专讜转 讛诪转讗讬诪讜转 诇讗 讘讝讜 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜诇讗 讘讝讜 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讗诐 诪拽讘诇讜转 讗专讬讞 诇专讞讘讜 讟驻讞 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


And similarly, if two matching, extremely narrow cross beams are placed alongside each other, even though there is not sufficient width in this beam to receive a small brick, and there is not sufficient width in that beam, if the two beams together can receive a small brick along its handbreadth width, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; but if not, one is required to bring another cross beam.


专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪拽讘诇转 讗专讬讞 诇讗专讻讜 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the two cross beams can receive a small brick along its length, which is three handbreadths, one need not bring another cross beam, but if not, one must bring another cross beam.


讛讬讜 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 注诇讬讜谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜转讞转讜谞讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛


If these two narrow cross beams are placed one above and one below, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One considers the upper one as though it were below, and the lower one as though it were above, i.e., close together. If the two together are fit to hold a small brick, they render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, although they are not actually close to each other, provided that the upper cross beam is not above twenty cubits and the lower one is not below ten handbreadths, between which a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讘讞讚讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讗讬谉


Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father with regard to one matter, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one matter. He holds in accordance with the opinion of his father in one matter, as he is of the opinion that the principle: One considers, applies. Just as Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna that the cross beam is considered as though it were sturdy even though it is not, his son, Rabbi Yosei, holds that one considers two cross beams placed apart as though they were adjacent.


讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 诇讗:


And Rabbi Yosei disagrees with his father鈥檚 opinion with regard to one matter. While Rabbi Yehuda holds that a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it even if it is higher than twenty cubits, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Within twenty cubits, yes, it renders the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; above twenty, it does not.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讞讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讬讗讛: 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 专讞讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讬讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转谞讬讬讛 专讞讘讛 讜讘专讬讗讛


It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It suffices if the cross beam is wide enough to hold a small brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it. Rav Yehuda taught this clause of the mishna to 岣yya bar Rav in the presence of Rav: It suffices if the cross beam is wide enough to hold a small brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it. Rav said to him: Teach it to him as follows: Wide enough and sturdy enough to hold a small brick.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讬讗讛 专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 砖讗谞讬:


The Gemara challenges this statement: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elai say that Rav said: A cross beam that is four handbreadths wide renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it even if it is not sturdy enough to hold a small brick? The Gemara answers: A cross beam that is four handbreadths wide is different, as a beam of that width is considered a roof and not a beam. It is considered as though the edge of the roof descended and constituted an actual partition, not merely a conspicuous distinction.


讛讬转讛 砖诇 拽砖 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 专讜讗讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱


It was stated in the mishna: Even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? If it is teaching that we say one considers the cross beam as though it were fit to bear a brick, then this clause is the same as the previous clause in the mishna: Wide enough even though it is not sturdy enough.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘诪讬谞讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: There is a novel point here, lest you say that with regard to a cross beam made of material that other beams of its own kind are sturdy, e.g., wood, we say that even the flimsiest of cross beams is considered sturdy. However, with regard to a cross beam made of material that only beams not of its own kind are sturdy, e.g., straw, which can never support a brick, we do not say that one considers the cross beam as if it were made of metal. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no difference between the cases.


注拽讜诪讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 驻砖讜讟讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讬讗 讘转讜讱 讛诪讘讜讬 讜注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 讞讜抓 诇诪讘讜讬 讛讬讗 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讜注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讛讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬谞讟诇 注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


It was taught in the mishna: If the cross beam is curved, one considers it as though it were straight. The Gemara challenges: That is obvious. The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: If the cross beam is inside the alleyway, and its curved section is outside the alleyway; or it is within twenty cubits of the ground, and its curved section is above twenty cubits; or it is above ten handbreadths, and its curved section is below ten handbreadths, meaning that the curved part of the beam is outside the area where a cross beam is effective, one considers the situation: In any case where, were the curved section outside the area where a cross beam is effective removed, there would not be a gap of three handbreadths between this effective part of the cross beam and that effective part of the cross beam, one need not bring another cross beam. And if not, if the gap would be greater, he must bring another cross beam.


讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讗 讘转讜讱 诪讘讜讬 讜注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 讞讜抓 诇诪讘讜讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗诪砖讜讻讬 讘转专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara comments: That too is obvious, as the curved portion of the cross beam is considered as though it were straight. The Gemara explains: In a case where the cross beam is inside the alleyway and its curved portion is outside the alleyway, it was necessary for him to teach the halakha. Lest you say: Let us be concerned that he will come to be drawn after it and carry in the area where the curvature extends beyond the alleyway, Rabbi Zeira teaches us that this is not a concern.


注讙讜诇讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪专讜讘注转: 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛讬拽驻讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 专讞讘 讟驻讞


The mishna continues: If the cross beam is round, one considers it as though it were square. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this clause as well? Similar cases were already taught in the mishna. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the last clause of this section, i.e., the principle that any circle with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in diameter.


诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬注砖 讗转 讛讬诐 诪讜爪拽 注砖专 讘讗诪讛 诪砖驻转讜 注讚 砖驻转讜 注讙诇 住讘讬讘 讜讞诪砖 讘讗诪讛 拽讜诪转讜 讜拽讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讬住讜讘 讗讜转讜 住讘讬讘


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, this ratio between circumference and diameter, derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse said with regard to King Solomon: 鈥淎nd he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: It was round all about, and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did circle it round about鈥 (I Kings 7:23).


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖驻转讜


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there its brim that must be taken into account? The diameter of the sea was measured from the inside, and if its circumference was measured from the outside, this ratio is no longer accurate.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖驻转讜 砖驻转 驻专讞 砖讜砖谉 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注讘讬讜 讟驻讞 讜砖驻转讜 讻诪注砖讛 讻讜住 驻专讞 砖讜砖谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讘转 讬讻讬诇


Rav Pappa said: With regard to its brim, it is written that the brim is as the petals of a lily, as stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd it was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was wrought as the brim of a cup, as the petals of a lily; it contained two thousand bat (I Kings 7:26). The brim was very thin.


讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪砖讛讜 讻讬 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诪讙讜讗讬 拽讗 讞砖讬讘


The Gemara asks: But nevertheless, isn鈥檛 there the minimal amount of the thickness of the brim? The Gemara answers: When one calculates the circumference, he calculates from the inside.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 讛讬讛 诪讞讝讬拽 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 诪拽讜讛 讟讛专讛 诪讻讚讬 诪拽讜讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜专讞抓 讗转 讘砖专讜


Rabbi 岣yya taught in a baraita: The sea that Solomon fashioned contained a volume of one hundred and fifty baths of ritual purification. The Gemara asks: After all, with regard to a ritual bath, how much is its volume? It is forty se鈥檃, as it was taught in a baraita: And he shall bathe his flesh


讘诪讬诐 讘诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讻诇 讘砖专讜 诪讬诐 砖讻诇 讙讜驻讜 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉 讜讻诪讛 讛谉 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讘专讜诐 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛


in water; specifically in the water of a ritual bath. The expression 鈥渁ll his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 15:16) teaches that one must immerse in water that his whole body can enter at once. And how much is that? A cubit by a cubit by the height of three cubits. And the Sages calculated that the volume of water necessary for a ritual bath of this size is forty se鈥檃.


讻诪讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讙专诪讬讚讬 诇转诇转 诪讗讛 诪讗讛 诇诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 讞诪砖讬谉 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 住讙讬讗


The Gemara now calculates how many ritual baths should have been contained in Solomon鈥檚 Sea. The volume of the sea was five hundred cubic cubits, as it was ten cubits in length, ten cubits in width, and five cubits in height. The minimum volume of a ritual bath is three cubic cubits. Therefore, three hundred cubic cubits is the volume of a hundred ritual baths, and one hundred and fifty cubic cubits is the volume of another fifty ritual baths. Consequently, four hundred and fifty cubic cubits are enough to contain a hundred and fifty ritual baths; but the volume of the sea was five hundred.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讬讘讜注讗 讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 注讙讜诇 讛讬讛


The Gemara answers that there is an error in the calculation: These calculations with regard to the volume of the sea would apply to a square, but the sea fashioned by Solomon was round, and its volume was therefore smaller.


诪讻讚讬 讻诪讛 诪专讜讘注 讬转专 注诇 讛注讙讜诇 专讘讬注 诇讗专讘注 诪讗讛 诪讗讛 诇诪讗讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讛谞讬 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜


The Gemara continues to ask: Now, how much larger is a square of ten-by-ten cubits than a circle with a diameter of ten cubits? A quarter. Consequently, four hundred cubic cubits of our original calculation must be reduced to three hundred, which is the volume of one hundred ritual baths; and the remaining hundred cubits must be reduced to seventy-five, which is the volume of twenty-five ritual baths. According to this calculation, Solomon鈥檚 Sea was the size of only one hundred and twenty-five ritual baths, not one hundred and fifty as stated above.


转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 转讞转讜谞讜转 诪专讜讘注讜转 讜砖转讬诐 注诇讬讜谞讜转 注讙讜诇讜转


In answer to this question, Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught as follows: In the sea that Solomon fashioned, the three lower cubits were square and the upper two were round. Consequently, the three lower cubits of the sea contained the volume of a hundred ritual baths, and its upper two cubits contained the volume of fifty ritual baths, for a total of one hundred and fifty ritual baths.


谞讛讬 讚讗讬驻讻讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚砖驻转讜 注讙讜诇 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讞讚讗


The Gemara comments: Although you cannot say the opposite, that the bottom of the sea was round, as it is written in the verse that its brim was round; you can, however, say that only one cubit on top was round.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇驻讬诐 讘转 讬讻讬诇 讘转 讻诪讛 讛讜讬讗 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 诪注砖专 讛讘转 诪谉 讛讻讜专 讚讛讜讛 诇讛讜 砖讬转讗 讗诇驻讬 讙专讬讜讬


The Gemara rejects this possibility: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the sea: 鈥淎nd it was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the petals of a lily; it contained two thousand bat (i Kings 7:26). How much is the measure of a bat? Three se鈥檃, as the verse states: 鈥淐oncerning the ordinance of oil, the bat of oil, you shall offer the tenth part of a bat out of the kor, which is a 岣mer of ten bat, for ten bat are a 岣mer鈥 (Ezekiel 45:14). This proves that the bat is a tenth of a kor, or three se鈥檃, as a kor is thirty se鈥檃. Consequently, the sea, which contained two thousand bat, contained six thousand se鈥檃, the volume of exactly one hundred and fifty ritual baths.


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 诪讞讝讬拽 讘转讬诐 砖诇砖转 讗诇驻讬诐 讛讛讜讗 诇讙讜讚砖讗


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written elsewhere with regard to Solomon鈥檚 Sea: 鈥淚t received and held three thousand bat (ii Chronicles 4:5)? The Gemara answers: That is referring to the heaped measure of dry goods that the sea could hold, as dry goods can be heaped above the brim.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 讙讜讚砖讛 转诇转讗 讛讜讬 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讻讜讜专转 讛拽砖 讜讻讜讜专转 讛拽谞讬诐 讜讘讜专 住驻讬谞讛 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 砖讜诇讬诐 讜讛谉 诪讞讝讬拽讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讘诇讞 砖讛谉 讻讜专讬讬诐 讘讬讘砖 讟讛讜专讬谉:


Abaye said: Learn from it that the surplus of dry goods in a vessel relative to liquids is one-third of the contents of the vessel. We also learned the same thing in the following mishna: A carriage, a box, and a cupboard, a round straw barrel, and a round barrel made of reeds, and the cistern of an Alexandrian ship, which is a large vessel placed on a boat and filled with potable water, although these vessels have bottoms, i.e., they are receptacles, since they have a capacity of forty se鈥檃 of liquid, which is the equivalent of two kor of dry goods, they are ritually pure. Even if they come into contact with a source of ritual impurity, they do not become impure. Beyond a certain size, containers are no longer considered vessels and, consequently, cannot become ritually impure. This mishna states clearly that a vessel that holds forty se鈥檃 of liquids can hold two kor, or sixty se鈥檃, of dry goods.


诪转谞讬壮 诇讞讬讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讙讜讘讛谉 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜专讞讘谉 讜注讜讘讬讬谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讞讘谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐:


MISHNA: The side posts the Sages spoke of with regard to rendering an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, their height must be at least ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness may be any amount. Rabbi Yosei says: Their width must be at least three handbreadths.


讙诪壮 诇讞讬讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讻讜壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 诇讞讬讬谉 讘注讬谞谉


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: The side posts the Sages spoke of, etc. The Gemara asks: Shall we say the mishna taught an unattributed ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that in order to permit carrying in an alleyway, we require two side posts?


诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讞讬讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讜专讛 谞诪讬 谞讬转谞讬 拽讜专讜转 讜诪讗讬 拽讜专讜转 拽讜专讜转 讚注诇诪讗


The Gemara responds: No; what is meant by the plural term side posts? Side posts in general, and not those required by a single alleyway. The Gemara asks: If so, let the previous mishna also teach the halakha of a cross beam with the plural term cross beams, and we would say: What is meant by the plural term cross beams? Cross beams in general.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜转谉 诇讞讬讬谉 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讙讜讘讛谉 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜专讜讞讘谉 讜注讜讘讬讬谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇


The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: Those side posts that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed about, of which Rabbi Eliezer required two and the Sages sufficed with one, their height must be at least ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness may be any amount. The Gemara asks: And how much is any amount? Rabbi 岣yya taught: Even as small as the string used to tie a coat.


转谞讗 注砖讛 诇讞讬 诇讞爪讬 诪讘讜讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 诪讘讜讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讬砖 诇讜 讞爪讬 诪讘讜讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讻讜诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


It was taught in a Tosefta: With regard to one who erected a side post for half an alleyway, i.e., he put it up halfway down the alleyway rather than at its entrance, he has the right to carry only in the inner half of the alleyway, but not in the outer half. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; what novel element was introduced here? Rather, say: He may carry in the inner half of the alleyway even though there is no side post at the entrance to the alleyway. The Gemara asks: That too is obvious. The Gemara explains that nonetheless there is a novelty here: Lest you say that we should be concerned that if it is permitted to carry in the inner half one might come to use the entire alleyway, the Tosefta teaches that carrying in the inner half is permitted.


讗诪专 专讘讗 注砖讛 诇讞讬 诇诪讘讜讬 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 砖诇砖讛 讗讜 砖讛驻诇讬讙讜 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 砖诇砖讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇诪讟讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬谉 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专:


Rava said: With regard to one who erected a side post in an alleyway and raised it three handbreadths from the ground, or distanced it three handbreadths from the wall, he has not done anything, as it is not a valid side post. Even according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: We say that objects separated by a gap of up to four handbreadths are considered connected, that applies only above, e.g., to a cross beam that does not reach the wall of the alleyway; but below, since it is a partition through which goats can pass, as a goat can pass through an opening three handbreadths high, even he did not say that they are considered connected.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讞讘谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讘讛讬诇诪讬 讜诇讗 讘诇讞讬讬谉


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The width of the side posts must be at least three handbreadths. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not with regard to preparing salt brine [hilmei] on Shabbat, and not with regard to side posts.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讘讛讬诇诪讬 讗诪专转 诇谉 讘诇讞讬讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讛讬诇诪讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬谉 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 诇讞讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讻讜讜转讬讛


Rav Huna bar 岣nana said to him: With regard to brine you told us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, but with regard to side posts you did not tell us this; perhaps you have forgotten that the halakha is in accordance with his view in that case. Rav Yosef asked: What is different about brine, with regard to which the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yosei? In the case of side posts also the Sages disagree with him, and therefore the halakha should not be in accordance with his view in either case. Rav Huna bar 岣nana said to him: Side posts are different, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and therefore the halakha may be decided in accordance with their jointly held position.


专讘 专讞讜诪讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 [讘专 砖讬诇转] 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讘讛讬诇诪讬 讜诇讗 讘诇讞讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专讛 讜讙诪讬专谞讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬诪讜拽讜 注诪讜


The Gemara reports that Rav Ra岣mei taught this version of the previous discussion: Rav Yehuda, the son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not with regard to brine and not with regard to side posts. At some later point, someone said to him: Did you really say this? He said to them: No. Rava said, reinforcing his words with an oath: By God! He did in fact say this, and I learned it from him, but he later retracted this ruling. And what is the reason he retracted it? Due to the well-known principle that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning [nimmuko] is with him, and the halakha follows his opinion even against the majority view.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 诪讗讬 注诪讗 讚讘专


Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: What is the accepted halakha with regard to the width of a side post? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; it is common practice to rely on a side post of minimal width.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讛砖讜转讛 诪讬诐 诇爪诪讗讜 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 谞驻砖讜转 专讘讜转 讜讞住专讜谞谉 注诇 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘专讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 诪讗讬 注诪讗 讚讘专


The Gemara notes that there are those who taught that this answer was given with regard to this discussion: One who drinks water to quench his thirst recites the following blessing prior to drinking: By Whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees and says he recites the blessing: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs, for all that You have created. Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: What is the halakha? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; the customary practice is to say: By Whose word all things came to be.


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 10-16

This week we will learn what the minimum and maximum dimensions of an alleyway and a courtyard are, understand the...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 14: Rabbinic Geometry Represent!

Parameters needed for a koreh and lechi, and a round koreh, with its circumference and diameter... leads to a tangent......

Eruvin 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 14

讙诪壮 讟驻讞 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 讘注讬


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the statement in the mishna with regard to the minimum width of the cross beam: A handbreadth? A handbreadth and a half is required, as a small brick is a handbreadth and a half wide.


讻讬讜谉 讚专讞讘 诇拽讘诇 讟驻讞 讗讬讚讱 讞爪讬 讟驻讞 诪诇讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讘讟讬谞讗 诪砖讛讜 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪砖讛讜 诪讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗


The Gemara answers: Since the cross beam is wide enough to receive and hold a handbreadth, one can affix the remaining half handbreadth with plaster, a small amount on this side and a small amount on that side, and the brick will stand in place.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讜专讛 砖讗诪专讜 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讛讗 讘专讬讗讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜诪注诪讬讚讬 拽讜专讛 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讬讜 讘专讬讗讬谉 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 拽讜专讛 讜讗专讬讞 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讬讜 讘专讬讗讬谉 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 拽讜专讛 讜讗专讬讞


Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The cross beam of which the Sages spoke must be sturdy enough to receive and hold a small brick; however, the supports of the cross beam need not be sturdy enough to receive and hold a cross beam and a small brick. Criteria were established for the cross beam itself, which renders the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; criteria were not established for its supports. Rav 岣sda disagreed and said: Both this, the beam, and that, its supports, must be sturdy enough to hold a cross beam and a small brick.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛谞讬讞 拽讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 讜驻专住 注诇讬讛 诪讞爪诇转 讜讛讙讘讬讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 砖诇砖讛 拽讜专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诪讞讬爪讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 拽讜专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讚讛讗 诪讬讻住讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛


Rav Sheshet said: If one placed a cross beam over the entrance of an alleyway, and draped a mat over it, and raised the lower end of the mat three handbreadths from the ground, there is neither a cross beam here, nor is there a partition here to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it. There is neither a cross beam here, as it is obscured and therefore inconspicuous. Nor is there a partition here, as it is a partition that is more than three handbreadths off the ground through which goats can pass, and therefore it does not have the legal status of a partition.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讜专讛 讛讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讜讙注转 讘讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讻谉 砖转讬 拽讜专讜转 讗讞转 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讜讙注讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


Our Sages taught in the Tosefta: If a cross beam projects from this wall of an alleyway but does not touch that wall opposite, and similarly, if there are two cross beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from that wall opposite, and they do not touch one another, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between the beam and the wall, or between the two beams respectively, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of lavud. However, if there is a gap of three handbreadths, one must bring another cross beam.


专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讗专讘注 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the gap is less than four handbreadths, one need not bring another cross beam. However, if it is four handbreadths, he must bring another cross beam, as in his opinion the principle of lavud applies to a gap up to four handbreadths wide.


讜讻谉 砖转讬 拽讜专讜转 讛诪转讗讬诪讜转 诇讗 讘讝讜 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜诇讗 讘讝讜 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讗诐 诪拽讘诇讜转 讗专讬讞 诇专讞讘讜 讟驻讞 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


And similarly, if two matching, extremely narrow cross beams are placed alongside each other, even though there is not sufficient width in this beam to receive a small brick, and there is not sufficient width in that beam, if the two beams together can receive a small brick along its handbreadth width, one need not bring another cross beam to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; but if not, one is required to bring another cross beam.


专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪拽讘诇转 讗专讬讞 诇讗专讻讜 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the two cross beams can receive a small brick along its length, which is three handbreadths, one need not bring another cross beam, but if not, one must bring another cross beam.


讛讬讜 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 注诇讬讜谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜转讞转讜谞讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛


If these two narrow cross beams are placed one above and one below, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One considers the upper one as though it were below, and the lower one as though it were above, i.e., close together. If the two together are fit to hold a small brick, they render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, although they are not actually close to each other, provided that the upper cross beam is not above twenty cubits and the lower one is not below ten handbreadths, between which a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讘讞讚讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讗讬谉


Abaye said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father with regard to one matter, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one matter. He holds in accordance with the opinion of his father in one matter, as he is of the opinion that the principle: One considers, applies. Just as Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna that the cross beam is considered as though it were sturdy even though it is not, his son, Rabbi Yosei, holds that one considers two cross beams placed apart as though they were adjacent.


讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讚讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 诇讗:


And Rabbi Yosei disagrees with his father鈥檚 opinion with regard to one matter. While Rabbi Yehuda holds that a cross beam renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it even if it is higher than twenty cubits, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Within twenty cubits, yes, it renders the alleyway fit for one to carry within it; above twenty, it does not.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讞讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讬讗讛: 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 专讞讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讬讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转谞讬讬讛 专讞讘讛 讜讘专讬讗讛


It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It suffices if the cross beam is wide enough to hold a small brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it. Rav Yehuda taught this clause of the mishna to 岣yya bar Rav in the presence of Rav: It suffices if the cross beam is wide enough to hold a small brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it. Rav said to him: Teach it to him as follows: Wide enough and sturdy enough to hold a small brick.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讬讗讛 专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 砖讗谞讬:


The Gemara challenges this statement: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elai say that Rav said: A cross beam that is four handbreadths wide renders an alleyway fit for one to carry within it even if it is not sturdy enough to hold a small brick? The Gemara answers: A cross beam that is four handbreadths wide is different, as a beam of that width is considered a roof and not a beam. It is considered as though the edge of the roof descended and constituted an actual partition, not merely a conspicuous distinction.


讛讬转讛 砖诇 拽砖 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 专讜讗讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱


It was stated in the mishna: Even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? If it is teaching that we say one considers the cross beam as though it were fit to bear a brick, then this clause is the same as the previous clause in the mishna: Wide enough even though it is not sturdy enough.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘诪讬谞讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: There is a novel point here, lest you say that with regard to a cross beam made of material that other beams of its own kind are sturdy, e.g., wood, we say that even the flimsiest of cross beams is considered sturdy. However, with regard to a cross beam made of material that only beams not of its own kind are sturdy, e.g., straw, which can never support a brick, we do not say that one considers the cross beam as if it were made of metal. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no difference between the cases.


注拽讜诪讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 驻砖讜讟讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讬讗 讘转讜讱 讛诪讘讜讬 讜注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 讞讜抓 诇诪讘讜讬 讛讬讗 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讜注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讛讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬谞讟诇 注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转


It was taught in the mishna: If the cross beam is curved, one considers it as though it were straight. The Gemara challenges: That is obvious. The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: If the cross beam is inside the alleyway, and its curved section is outside the alleyway; or it is within twenty cubits of the ground, and its curved section is above twenty cubits; or it is above ten handbreadths, and its curved section is below ten handbreadths, meaning that the curved part of the beam is outside the area where a cross beam is effective, one considers the situation: In any case where, were the curved section outside the area where a cross beam is effective removed, there would not be a gap of three handbreadths between this effective part of the cross beam and that effective part of the cross beam, one need not bring another cross beam. And if not, if the gap would be greater, he must bring another cross beam.


讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讗 讘转讜讱 诪讘讜讬 讜注拽诪讜诪讬转讛 讞讜抓 诇诪讘讜讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗诪砖讜讻讬 讘转专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara comments: That too is obvious, as the curved portion of the cross beam is considered as though it were straight. The Gemara explains: In a case where the cross beam is inside the alleyway and its curved portion is outside the alleyway, it was necessary for him to teach the halakha. Lest you say: Let us be concerned that he will come to be drawn after it and carry in the area where the curvature extends beyond the alleyway, Rabbi Zeira teaches us that this is not a concern.


注讙讜诇讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪专讜讘注转: 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛讬拽驻讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 专讞讘 讟驻讞


The mishna continues: If the cross beam is round, one considers it as though it were square. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this clause as well? Similar cases were already taught in the mishna. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the last clause of this section, i.e., the principle that any circle with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in diameter.


诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬注砖 讗转 讛讬诐 诪讜爪拽 注砖专 讘讗诪讛 诪砖驻转讜 注讚 砖驻转讜 注讙诇 住讘讬讘 讜讞诪砖 讘讗诪讛 拽讜诪转讜 讜拽讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讬住讜讘 讗讜转讜 住讘讬讘


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, this ratio between circumference and diameter, derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse said with regard to King Solomon: 鈥淎nd he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: It was round all about, and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did circle it round about鈥 (I Kings 7:23).


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖驻转讜


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there its brim that must be taken into account? The diameter of the sea was measured from the inside, and if its circumference was measured from the outside, this ratio is no longer accurate.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖驻转讜 砖驻转 驻专讞 砖讜砖谉 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注讘讬讜 讟驻讞 讜砖驻转讜 讻诪注砖讛 讻讜住 驻专讞 砖讜砖谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讘转 讬讻讬诇


Rav Pappa said: With regard to its brim, it is written that the brim is as the petals of a lily, as stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd it was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was wrought as the brim of a cup, as the petals of a lily; it contained two thousand bat (I Kings 7:26). The brim was very thin.


讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪砖讛讜 讻讬 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诪讙讜讗讬 拽讗 讞砖讬讘


The Gemara asks: But nevertheless, isn鈥檛 there the minimal amount of the thickness of the brim? The Gemara answers: When one calculates the circumference, he calculates from the inside.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 讛讬讛 诪讞讝讬拽 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 诪拽讜讛 讟讛专讛 诪讻讚讬 诪拽讜讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜专讞抓 讗转 讘砖专讜


Rabbi 岣yya taught in a baraita: The sea that Solomon fashioned contained a volume of one hundred and fifty baths of ritual purification. The Gemara asks: After all, with regard to a ritual bath, how much is its volume? It is forty se鈥檃, as it was taught in a baraita: And he shall bathe his flesh


讘诪讬诐 讘诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讻诇 讘砖专讜 诪讬诐 砖讻诇 讙讜驻讜 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉 讜讻诪讛 讛谉 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讘专讜诐 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛


in water; specifically in the water of a ritual bath. The expression 鈥渁ll his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 15:16) teaches that one must immerse in water that his whole body can enter at once. And how much is that? A cubit by a cubit by the height of three cubits. And the Sages calculated that the volume of water necessary for a ritual bath of this size is forty se鈥檃.


讻诪讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讙专诪讬讚讬 诇转诇转 诪讗讛 诪讗讛 诇诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 讞诪砖讬谉 讘讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 住讙讬讗


The Gemara now calculates how many ritual baths should have been contained in Solomon鈥檚 Sea. The volume of the sea was five hundred cubic cubits, as it was ten cubits in length, ten cubits in width, and five cubits in height. The minimum volume of a ritual bath is three cubic cubits. Therefore, three hundred cubic cubits is the volume of a hundred ritual baths, and one hundred and fifty cubic cubits is the volume of another fifty ritual baths. Consequently, four hundred and fifty cubic cubits are enough to contain a hundred and fifty ritual baths; but the volume of the sea was five hundred.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讬讘讜注讗 讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 注讙讜诇 讛讬讛


The Gemara answers that there is an error in the calculation: These calculations with regard to the volume of the sea would apply to a square, but the sea fashioned by Solomon was round, and its volume was therefore smaller.


诪讻讚讬 讻诪讛 诪专讜讘注 讬转专 注诇 讛注讙讜诇 专讘讬注 诇讗专讘注 诪讗讛 诪讗讛 诇诪讗讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讛谞讬 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜


The Gemara continues to ask: Now, how much larger is a square of ten-by-ten cubits than a circle with a diameter of ten cubits? A quarter. Consequently, four hundred cubic cubits of our original calculation must be reduced to three hundred, which is the volume of one hundred ritual baths; and the remaining hundred cubits must be reduced to seventy-five, which is the volume of twenty-five ritual baths. According to this calculation, Solomon鈥檚 Sea was the size of only one hundred and twenty-five ritual baths, not one hundred and fifty as stated above.


转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 转讞转讜谞讜转 诪专讜讘注讜转 讜砖转讬诐 注诇讬讜谞讜转 注讙讜诇讜转


In answer to this question, Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught as follows: In the sea that Solomon fashioned, the three lower cubits were square and the upper two were round. Consequently, the three lower cubits of the sea contained the volume of a hundred ritual baths, and its upper two cubits contained the volume of fifty ritual baths, for a total of one hundred and fifty ritual baths.


谞讛讬 讚讗讬驻讻讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚砖驻转讜 注讙讜诇 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讞讚讗


The Gemara comments: Although you cannot say the opposite, that the bottom of the sea was round, as it is written in the verse that its brim was round; you can, however, say that only one cubit on top was round.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇驻讬诐 讘转 讬讻讬诇 讘转 讻诪讛 讛讜讬讗 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 诪注砖专 讛讘转 诪谉 讛讻讜专 讚讛讜讛 诇讛讜 砖讬转讗 讗诇驻讬 讙专讬讜讬


The Gemara rejects this possibility: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the sea: 鈥淎nd it was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the petals of a lily; it contained two thousand bat (i Kings 7:26). How much is the measure of a bat? Three se鈥檃, as the verse states: 鈥淐oncerning the ordinance of oil, the bat of oil, you shall offer the tenth part of a bat out of the kor, which is a 岣mer of ten bat, for ten bat are a 岣mer鈥 (Ezekiel 45:14). This proves that the bat is a tenth of a kor, or three se鈥檃, as a kor is thirty se鈥檃. Consequently, the sea, which contained two thousand bat, contained six thousand se鈥檃, the volume of exactly one hundred and fifty ritual baths.


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 诪讞讝讬拽 讘转讬诐 砖诇砖转 讗诇驻讬诐 讛讛讜讗 诇讙讜讚砖讗


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written elsewhere with regard to Solomon鈥檚 Sea: 鈥淚t received and held three thousand bat (ii Chronicles 4:5)? The Gemara answers: That is referring to the heaped measure of dry goods that the sea could hold, as dry goods can be heaped above the brim.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 讙讜讚砖讛 转诇转讗 讛讜讬 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讻讜讜专转 讛拽砖 讜讻讜讜专转 讛拽谞讬诐 讜讘讜专 住驻讬谞讛 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 砖讜诇讬诐 讜讛谉 诪讞讝讬拽讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讘诇讞 砖讛谉 讻讜专讬讬诐 讘讬讘砖 讟讛讜专讬谉:


Abaye said: Learn from it that the surplus of dry goods in a vessel relative to liquids is one-third of the contents of the vessel. We also learned the same thing in the following mishna: A carriage, a box, and a cupboard, a round straw barrel, and a round barrel made of reeds, and the cistern of an Alexandrian ship, which is a large vessel placed on a boat and filled with potable water, although these vessels have bottoms, i.e., they are receptacles, since they have a capacity of forty se鈥檃 of liquid, which is the equivalent of two kor of dry goods, they are ritually pure. Even if they come into contact with a source of ritual impurity, they do not become impure. Beyond a certain size, containers are no longer considered vessels and, consequently, cannot become ritually impure. This mishna states clearly that a vessel that holds forty se鈥檃 of liquids can hold two kor, or sixty se鈥檃, of dry goods.


诪转谞讬壮 诇讞讬讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讙讜讘讛谉 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜专讞讘谉 讜注讜讘讬讬谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讞讘谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐:


MISHNA: The side posts the Sages spoke of with regard to rendering an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, their height must be at least ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness may be any amount. Rabbi Yosei says: Their width must be at least three handbreadths.


讙诪壮 诇讞讬讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讻讜壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 诇讞讬讬谉 讘注讬谞谉


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: The side posts the Sages spoke of, etc. The Gemara asks: Shall we say the mishna taught an unattributed ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that in order to permit carrying in an alleyway, we require two side posts?


诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讞讬讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讜专讛 谞诪讬 谞讬转谞讬 拽讜专讜转 讜诪讗讬 拽讜专讜转 拽讜专讜转 讚注诇诪讗


The Gemara responds: No; what is meant by the plural term side posts? Side posts in general, and not those required by a single alleyway. The Gemara asks: If so, let the previous mishna also teach the halakha of a cross beam with the plural term cross beams, and we would say: What is meant by the plural term cross beams? Cross beams in general.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜转谉 诇讞讬讬谉 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讘讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讙讜讘讛谉 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜专讜讞讘谉 讜注讜讘讬讬谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇


The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: Those side posts that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed about, of which Rabbi Eliezer required two and the Sages sufficed with one, their height must be at least ten handbreadths, and their width and thickness may be any amount. The Gemara asks: And how much is any amount? Rabbi 岣yya taught: Even as small as the string used to tie a coat.


转谞讗 注砖讛 诇讞讬 诇讞爪讬 诪讘讜讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 诪讘讜讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讬砖 诇讜 讞爪讬 诪讘讜讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讻讜诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


It was taught in a Tosefta: With regard to one who erected a side post for half an alleyway, i.e., he put it up halfway down the alleyway rather than at its entrance, he has the right to carry only in the inner half of the alleyway, but not in the outer half. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; what novel element was introduced here? Rather, say: He may carry in the inner half of the alleyway even though there is no side post at the entrance to the alleyway. The Gemara asks: That too is obvious. The Gemara explains that nonetheless there is a novelty here: Lest you say that we should be concerned that if it is permitted to carry in the inner half one might come to use the entire alleyway, the Tosefta teaches that carrying in the inner half is permitted.


讗诪专 专讘讗 注砖讛 诇讞讬 诇诪讘讜讬 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 砖诇砖讛 讗讜 砖讛驻诇讬讙讜 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 砖诇砖讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇诪讟讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬谉 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专:


Rava said: With regard to one who erected a side post in an alleyway and raised it three handbreadths from the ground, or distanced it three handbreadths from the wall, he has not done anything, as it is not a valid side post. Even according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: We say that objects separated by a gap of up to four handbreadths are considered connected, that applies only above, e.g., to a cross beam that does not reach the wall of the alleyway; but below, since it is a partition through which goats can pass, as a goat can pass through an opening three handbreadths high, even he did not say that they are considered connected.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讞讘谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讘讛讬诇诪讬 讜诇讗 讘诇讞讬讬谉


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The width of the side posts must be at least three handbreadths. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not with regard to preparing salt brine [hilmei] on Shabbat, and not with regard to side posts.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讘讛讬诇诪讬 讗诪专转 诇谉 讘诇讞讬讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讛讬诇诪讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬谉 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 诇讞讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 专讘讬 讻讜讜转讬讛


Rav Huna bar 岣nana said to him: With regard to brine you told us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, but with regard to side posts you did not tell us this; perhaps you have forgotten that the halakha is in accordance with his view in that case. Rav Yosef asked: What is different about brine, with regard to which the Sages disagree with Rabbi Yosei? In the case of side posts also the Sages disagree with him, and therefore the halakha should not be in accordance with his view in either case. Rav Huna bar 岣nana said to him: Side posts are different, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and therefore the halakha may be decided in accordance with their jointly held position.


专讘 专讞讜诪讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 [讘专 砖讬诇转] 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讘讛讬诇诪讬 讜诇讗 讘诇讞讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专讛 讜讙诪讬专谞讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬诪讜拽讜 注诪讜


The Gemara reports that Rav Ra岣mei taught this version of the previous discussion: Rav Yehuda, the son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not with regard to brine and not with regard to side posts. At some later point, someone said to him: Did you really say this? He said to them: No. Rava said, reinforcing his words with an oath: By God! He did in fact say this, and I learned it from him, but he later retracted this ruling. And what is the reason he retracted it? Due to the well-known principle that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning [nimmuko] is with him, and the halakha follows his opinion even against the majority view.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 诪讗讬 注诪讗 讚讘专


Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: What is the accepted halakha with regard to the width of a side post? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; it is common practice to rely on a side post of minimal width.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讛砖讜转讛 诪讬诐 诇爪诪讗讜 讗讜诪专 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 谞驻砖讜转 专讘讜转 讜讞住专讜谞谉 注诇 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘专讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 诪讗讬 注诪讗 讚讘专


The Gemara notes that there are those who taught that this answer was given with regard to this discussion: One who drinks water to quench his thirst recites the following blessing prior to drinking: By Whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees and says he recites the blessing: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs, for all that You have created. Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: What is the halakha? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; the customary practice is to say: By Whose word all things came to be.


Scroll To Top